On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 14:26 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 14:10 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > err = event_vfs_getname(result);
> >
> > I really think we should not do this. Events like we have them should be
> > inactive, totally passive entities, only observe but not affect execution
> > (other than the bare minimal time delay introduced by observance).
>
> Well, this patchset already demonstrates that we can use a single event
> callback for a rather useful purpose.
Can and should are two distinct things.
> Either it makes sense to do, in which case we should share facilities as much
> as possible, or it makes no sense, in which case we should not merge it at
> all.
And I'm arguing we should _not_. Observing is radically different from
Affecting, at the very least the two things should have different
permission schemes. We should not confuse these two matters.
> > If you want another entity that is more active, please invent a new name
> > for
> > it and create a new subsystem for them, now you could have these active
> > entities also have an (automatic) passive event side, but that's some
> > detail.
>
> Why should we have two callbacks next to each other:
>
> event_vfs_getname(result);
> result = check_event_vfs_getname(result);
>
> if one could do it all?
Did you actually read the bit where I said that check_event_* (although
I still think that name sucks) could imply a matching event_*?